Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 17

< 16 April	18 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rógvi Holm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original PROD rationale was that this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, which was contested under the assumption that this player has played for Aberdeen, who play in a fully-professional league. However, he never made the first-team, as confirmed by both Soccerbase and the Post War English & Scottish Football League A - Z Player's Database, and so remains non-notable. Giant Snowman 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he played first team football on Aberdeen's official website either. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails search engine check, and notability guidelines doktorb _words^deeds 09:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable football player. Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL Overdrawn Invader (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yewri Guillen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league prospect only known for his death fails WP:BLP1E, WP:ATHLETE Delete Secret ^account 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, cited only for his untimely death. WWGB (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to clear notability standards as a professional baseball player. His death is unfortunate, but also non-notable in Wikipedia terms. My condolences to his family. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Death ≠ notability. Alexius08 (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. This article was created after his death, which was a news story. We had not heard of him prior. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Washington Nationals. No evidence whatsoever of notability, but a reasonable search term. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could support redirecting rather than deleting if a suitable target is available. However, since the Washington Nationals article does not contain any information about this individual and probably never will, I don't think that is a suitable target per WP:REDIRECT#PLA, even though I agree that Yewri Guillen is a reasonable search term. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think we have a pretty obvious case here, simply not notable. Very little sourcing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, With condolences and sympathy to his family, he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE and he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Onyenezi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An author of short stories and poems. Has self-published with Lulu.com (sorry link is blacklist on WP). Can't find a date for publication of his first book, Locust Invasion. Here is his words from the publisher's website. Some blog sites [1] have his book published in 2012. I think this is a case of too soon. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As far as I can tell, his self-published book has not attracted any critical attention. This blog entry by the subject on site of Kimpa Vita press indicates his novel is to be published some time in 2011, but there is no indication it has been published yet. I can find no critical reviews of this possibly forthcoming work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another self-published author at this point. Nothing I can find indicates that they'd meet WP:BK. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownyx[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software of no particular notability. Google search for Ownyx results in a lot of places where it can be found, but no significant coverage in independent sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Alexius08 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very promotional, probably an attempt at advertising. No third-party coverage of this package that I could find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no clear notability, created by an SPA, so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nabed Alam Bora[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a hoax; on "BIKE INDIA Magazine" website, I could not find this name. "Nabed Alam Bora" is no doubt the author himself. Fails notability. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence he satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to demonstrate inclusion-worthiness. A very poorly written article to boot. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What they said, with an added does this really merit voting? Seems pretty apparent that this is neither notable nor accurate, nor even well written; innit this sort of thing what CSD is for? No, really, is it? I have no idea. ~ Isarra (talk) (stalk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As said above, no coverage in reliable sources. No sources, no references. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 15:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kulathakkal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable family history, all information from unpublished family history; balance of article (currently blanked as copyvio) is from what may be a fringe theory of the origin of Christianity in India, see http://apostlethomasindia.wordpress.com/, presented as fact here TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLacks multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Been working with many editors and IP addresses, in it's current state it doesn't seem to qualify. Hasteur (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like self promotion by someone with an internet connection. --CarTick (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once the copyvio is removed, there's not much left; certainly not enough for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy. (non-admin closure) T3h 1337 b0y 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posigrip[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article all are blogs or press releases, and I was unable to find anything better than trivial product listings online. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODed the article, because of the reasons stated in the nom. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I am not against any user but Acoustic is the parent company of Posigrip, which is really huge and earning huge revenues and also had a huge growth in the last few years. Therefore, I believe the Posigrip wiki page must not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool1guy (talk • contribs)

The reasons you give seem a little abstract; would you be willing to provide a little more detail for the keep rationale in the context of the notability guidelines, particularly WP:CORP? VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be about Acoustic and not about Posigrip. Even then, Acoustic must meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. 'Beleiving' a subject to be notable is unfortunately not among the criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, I will explain with an example. There are two brothers who are singers. One is more popular and second one learnt from the first one and become a bit less popular than the first one. So, can't both of them have a wiki page ? The second one learnt from the first one so that doesn't matters. Same with this issue, Acoustic is the parent company of Posigrip but Posigrip itself is a well established company. So, what can't it have a wiki page ? Cool1guy (talk)

Please refer to Wikipedia policies and criteria that support your non-deletion rationale. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I would like to recommend the article be edited and then proposed for re-introduction. When creating the article I should have stated more clearly that Acousti-Clean Inc. is doing business as (DBA) Posigrip.^[1] Acousti - Clean Inc. DBA as Posigrip is a long standing company and was named an INC 500 company in 2007. ^[2]

I believe an Inc. 500 company deserves a listing on Wikipedia. The company may lack a large online presence, but is nevertheless a verifiable, long standing company. The company has been recognized by Inc. 500 as one of the fastest growing private companies in America,^[3] is registered with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Dun & Bradstreet,^[4]^[5] and owns several trademarks with the United States Trademark Office.^[6] Posigrip has been around since 1986 and is a registered trademark with the United States Trademark Office.^[7]^[8] Et bravo (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Making the above references visible and removing duplicates yields:

Inc. 5000
Dun & Bradstreet
Better Business Bureau
Trademarkia 22919-page-1-2
Trademarkia 75062770
Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't see how the company meets WP:ORG or the product meets WP:N. At the moment it just looks spammy. Note that the company being wildly profitable does not mean that their products are automatically notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
userify The first sentence of the article says that "Posigrip is a company" but other sources contradict this statement. For example this page shows that Posigrip is a registered trademark. But this page both says that Posigrip is a registered trademark and that "Posigrip" has status as a copyright holder, and on the about page that Posigrip is a division. I could not find any other references to "Feret News". Considering moving this article to Acousti-Clean, one year on the Inc. 5000 list goes slightly toward the definition in WP:N, "worthy of notice", but only slightly. I am not opposed to userifying–with all of the franchise listings it is hard to find independent secondary sources that may actually exist. This 16 April 2011 source may be relevant, I'm not sure who "Franchise Gator" is: www.stockmarketsreview.com/news/132400. Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Heckett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find reliable, secondary sources on this junior surf athlete. Apparently a teen out of Washington state with the same name once took last place in a city swimming competition's 50m breaststroke [2], but even if that's the same person, it's unlikely to be notable. The surf competition junior championship looks more notable, but I am completely unable to verify it. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil, no sources can be found to verify an of the claims made in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dilbert principle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cartoon version of the peter principle. It barely deserves a notation in the popular culture section of the peter principle.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not merge, as it is not the same thing as the Peter principle, so the brief mention in Peter principle is enough. Kansan (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now neutral as more sources have come up, although I'm still not quite sure of the overall notability. Kansan (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single delete? Why won't this article die already?--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's notable, that's why. This could be speedy-closed as no delete !votes other than the nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There's some sources out there-. 1, 2 for example. A possibility for a merge to the article on the book is reasonable, not decided here under the threat of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a book by the title. The article should be refocused around the book. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to The Dilbert Principal and focus on the book. The book is notable and the current content should become the section that discusses the book's thesis. GabrielF (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the principalle itself is notable, source-able, and ironically, true. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regarding notability, it isn't just from the cartoons themselves. Scott Adams wrote an entire book on the subject, and the book has been required reading in some business schools. So it's not a good deletion candidate. Also, the Dilbert Principle isn't a retelling of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle describes a darwinian process that is essentially a dark pattern that was never consciously intended by any of the people involved, whereas the Dilbert Principle is that fools are purposely sequestered. Lastly, BTW, the correct spelling is the one ending in -le, not -al. — ¾-10 20:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, as both the idea that a company promotes incompetent employees to middle management, where they do the least harm, and the book about the "principle." References in the article show that this is taught in college courses. Edison (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be lots of sources which testify to the topic's notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has found its way into the vernacular Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; subject is notable as a common term. Refocusing on the book might work as well, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this well-cited article is about a corollary of the Peter Principle, but is not the same thing. See also Roosevelt Corollary. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources, agree it would be better as The Dilbert Principle with more focus on the book.. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes article requires expansion, but is a notable topic. Rjwilmsi 18:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Certainly more important than nominator suggests. It's not clear to me why the article needs deletion - Dilbert is influential in many areas of management analysis. I would expect more on The Dilbert Principle book here too. The suggestion to expand the entry to feature the book more prominently is appealing, but would need a correct spelling. Ringbark (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable principle (not principal). There should be more about the book, as Ringbark noted. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killer (card game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm having trouble finding any reliable sources for this unsourced article. I know it exists because it was played at my high school back when I was in school, but not how widespread it is or if there are any "official" rules. The article as written almost seems to assert notability for it being played at a specific school. I tried a web search, and to avoid getting hits just for the game "Killer Bunnies", included the search term "bomb", still with little luck. Kansan (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I agree with Tetron76 that this is most likely the same game as Tien Len, so I would be fine with a redirect there. Kansan (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment card and dice games can be very tricky to source and I don't think people realise quite how much word of mouth dominates. I suspect looking for links that the game probably has another name. Now the question is how long will it take me to find it... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having saved the Iranian card game Hokm from deletion as a hoax, then learned that it is exactly the same game (even using the same terminology) as the card game Troefcall / t'rup chaal popular in Suriname and played in the Netherlands, and finally found out that it is one of the most popular games in India, better known under the names Court piece / Coat peace / Kot pees, Rang / Rung / Trumps and satat / seven hands, but severely under-documented in the Western literature – I know what the previous commenter means. But this does not sound like such a case: "Killer originated from a group of genius misfits known as 'The Guild'. Killer has been a popular game among students at school." It sounds like case where WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day is relevant. If you know the guys who made it up, odds are it's not notable. Hans Adler 06:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tien Len I briefly went through Category:Shedding-type card games which has several issues and decided that this is the closest game. There is already a Killer (Hawaian version) section. Other articles that could well be basically the same game are Big Two, Zheng Shangyou, Pusoy Dos, Winner (card game). There is another game that I am not sure about called Pits (card game).Tetron76 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Alexf^(talk) 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Apartments[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. Unsourced. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I know what this article refers to and it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ... discospinster _talk 18:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the speedy tag I put on doesn't do the trick. No claim of notability, nor any. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From reading it, I don't know what it's about, so a speedy for context might be better than A7. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I too think it qualifies for speedy under context. -- role^player 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Northern Cyprus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suggest deleting the article Outline of Northern Cyprus and merging the content to Northern Cyprus, Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey since a separate article seems unnecessary. There is unnecessary duplication of content and significant overlap. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the talk page, I disagree. Outlines offer a different take to articles as a type of list. I dont see any overlap and think it should stay - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw your attention to the overlap in the lengthy introduction but also between the Outline of Cyprus as well as the Outline of Northern Cyprus. For example, Television in Northern Cyprus redirects to Television in Cyprus, i.e. Television in the Republic of Cyprus, and Freedom of religion in Northern Cyprus is redirected to Freedom of Religion in Cyprus (and notably in this case, freedom of religion is not comparable between Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, nor does it say so anywhere). There is also overlap with the ISO codes since these are the ISO codes of the Republic of Cyprus and there are no recognised ISO codes for Northern Cyprus (they just use the Republic of Cyprus ISO codes) and ditto for the Internet domain naming standards. There is even a Rail transport in Northern Cyprus article when there is no rail transport in Northern Cyprus. Cuisine of Northern Cyprus redirects to Cuisine of Cyprus i.e. Republic of Cyprus. There is also content that can be integrated with Outline of Turkey such as military content since the occupation force is the military of Turkey. It is a desperate Outline held together with the minimum of original or worthwhile content. If there are good reasons for keeping the Outline of an occupied territory I am all ears. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there may well be a case for duplication with them other outlines, although I'd still advocate keeping this. When I commented, you were only suggesting a merge to, and overlap with, the article itself. - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's an WP:OUTLINE. The always cover the same territory as the article. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outlines should all be moved out of Articlespace, into Portalspace or Bookspace. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Unless Nipsonanomhmata wants to start a general proposal to delete all outline articles, there's no reason to delete this one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to delete all Outline articles. However, there is a great deal of duplicate content and one Outline of Cyprus could include a subsection for content specific to the occupied territory. After all the Outline of Cyprus article is not called Outline of the Republic of Cyprus and it appears excessive to have an Outline of Northern Cyprus. Similarly, all military-specific content overlaps with Outline of Turkey since it is the military of the Republic of Turkey. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Cyprus has just as much duplication with Cyprus, Outline of Turkey has just as much duplication with Turkey. Besides, as Cyprus is not at Republic of Cyprus your naming argument is pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Outline of Northern Cyprus has duplication within Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey too. In fact, Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey could take up all the slack (of duplication) and there is no need for a seperate Outline of Northern Cyprus article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk)

There's as much duplication there as there is Outline of Europe has with Outline of Cyprus. It's standard for every country to have a separate outline, no matter how recognised they are. This request has no basis, and the Outline of Northern Cyprus is not the same as Outline of Cyprus or Outline of Turkey, as it has articles relating to Northern Cyprus, not just Cyprus of Turkey. Districts of Northern Cyprus, List of cities in Northern Cyprus, President of Northern Cyprus, etc. should not appear on either Outline of Cyprus or Outline of Turkey. I'm not continuing this line of conversation any longer. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't Districts of Northern Cyprus and List of cities in Northern Cyprus be listed in Outline of Cyprus? Outline of Cyprus is not Outline of the Republic of Cyprus. Why can't President of Northern Cyprus be listed in Outline of Turkey when only Turkey recognises the President of Northern Cyprus? I don't think that your comparison of Outline of Europe with Outline of Cyprus is comparable. Moreover, Northern Cyprus is not a country. It is an occupied territory that only the Republic of Turkey recognises as a country. Yet again, it is not comparable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it is an occupied territory and not a country (or vice versa) is a political viewpoint, not a viable rationale for deletion. Outlines for disputed territories such as Abhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Palestinian territories are common. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the territories that you have mentioned are comparable to Northern Cyprus. Not one because the majority populations of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Palestine (which was until the mid-20th Century a fully-recognised country) were already there. Whilst in the case of Northern Cyprus colonists from the Turkish mainland now outnumber the population that was there before 1974 (and the permanently stationed Turkish army is itself a major contributor to that fact). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is no duplication, period. Northern Cyprus is a distinct entity - whether legitimately so or not - and thus requires its own outline in keeping with our practice of featuring outlines for countries as well as disputed territories. Examples of this abound: Abhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and the Palestinian territories are just the first few I found. The absence of this outline, juxtaposed with the continued presence of similar outlines for disputed territories, would be decidedly not neutral. That some of the links redirect is not a justification for this article's deletion but rather a reason for those articles' creation. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious argument involving the extension of the fiction section of the Wikipedia library. The argument suggests that overlap is satisfactory until it is replaced with almost identical articles that replace the words "Republic of Cyprus" and/or "Republic of Turkey" with "Northern Cyprus". Bit difficult replacing "Turkish army" and "Turkish colonists" though. But ofcourse, with the passage of time, they too will be called Cypriots. Not comparing like with like with Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Palestine since their populations weren't shipped in (their majority populations were already there) and in fact, Palestine used to exist as a country before it became disputed. Not comparable with the minority of muslim Cypriots which, with the passage of time, became known as Turkish Cypriots in the early part of the 20th Century. And ofcourse the size of that population has been fattened with colonists from the Turkish mainland. Some of which were not voluntary colonists. Some were forced to relocate to Cyprus (Kurds as noted by various Human Rights organisations). "No duplication" is a non-argument. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be arguing about the validity of the entity of Northern Cyprus rather than the validity of this article. Maybe it would be advisable to return to the subject at hand - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 12:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded to the issues raised by Hemlock. However, you are right in that we are both off the subject at hand. It cannot be argued that there is "no duplication, period" since the majority of the outline comprises duplication of one kind or another. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep, without considering its international status, Northern Cyprus is a sovereign state, no need to deny it. If it is sovereign, it has something to outline, just like Somaliland. Actually, there is no need to have a discussion in this series of biased AfDs. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Highfields "You appear to be arguing about the validity of the entity of Northern Cyprus rather than the validity of this article. Maybe it would be advisable to return to the subject at hand." Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is all about denying the existence of a TRNC which exists. And if we return at the subject, it is still the same as Somaliland, and it is not a duplication. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is about the unnecessary duplication of content and significant overlap in Outline of Northern Cyprus which can be easily represented in Outline of Cyprus (there is no Outline for the Republic of Cyprus), and Outline of Turkey (and is already represented in those outlines). Moreover, it is represented separately in Northern Cyprus. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we should merge Northern Cyprus in Cyprus. That is actually another issue, and as you have said, the articles of Cyprus and Outline of Cyprus should be renamed as Republic of Cyprus and Outline of the Republic of Cyprus. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focussing on one thing at a time. The content of Outline of Northern Cyprus can easily be represented by Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey because there is no original content. Outline of Northern Cyprus is redundant. And there is no conflict in the name Outline of Cyprus (because it is not called Outline of the Republic of Cyprus). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is a disruptive and pointless nom. Outback the koala (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a disruptive and pointless nom? Outline of Northern Cyprus is pointless when the content is unoriginal duplicate, repeated, and in some cases plagiarised. Is there any reasonable reason why the content cannot be distributed between Outline of Cyprus (when there is no Outline of the Republic of Cyprus) and Outline of Turkey? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is the short name for the RoC officially and is used throughout the english speaking world as such. What's next Taiwan? Because we already have an Outline of China (PRC) ???? This is an unbelieveable argument. Do you expect anyone to buy this? Outback the koala (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that Outline of Cyprus is exactly the same as having Outline of the Republic of Cyprus. So, why is it not reasonable to share the content of Outline of Northern Cyprus between Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey? Just in case you missed reading the above I'll repeat it again (since Wikipedia, at least in this case, appears to be mirroring content in this Outline). "Television in Northern Cyprus redirects to Television in Cyprus, i.e. Television in the Republic of Cyprus, and Freedom of religion in Northern Cyprus is redirected to Freedom of Religion in Cyprus (and notably in this case, freedom of religion is not comparable between Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus, nor does it say so anywhere). There is also overlap with the ISO codes since these are the ISO codes of the Republic of Cyprus and there are no recognised ISO codes for Northern Cyprus (they just use the Republic of Cyprus ISO codes) and ditto for the Internet domain naming standards. There is even a Rail transport in Northern Cyprus article when there is no rail transport in Northern Cyprus. Cuisine of Northern Cyprus redirects to Cuisine of Cyprus i.e. Republic of Cyprus. There is also content that can be integrated with Outline of Turkey such as military content since the occupation force is the military of Turkey. It is a desperate Outline held together with the minimum of original or worthwhile content." btw Taiwan is not comparable. Nor is Palestine, Nagorno-Karabakh, or Abkhazia. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to that there are no Turkish/Greek Cypriot cuisine separately, there is mainly one Cypriot cuisine. And the redirect of Television in Northern Cyprus is wrong, that article needs to be created. And what do you mean by ISO codes? The TRNC uses the internet domain name .nc.tr, or sometimes .tr, and sometimes there are no counry domains at all, but because the country is unrecognized, it is nonsense to expect a separate ISO code or internet domain name. And the Outline of Turkey has no relationship with this, unless you want to delete all Northern Cyprus articles. Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia etc. are comparable, they are in the exactlysame status. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that all the Turkish colonists know Cypriot cuisine. That's impressive. Yes, the redirect of television in Northern Cyprus is wrong. Many of the channels of the Republic of Cyprus are available but so are many channels of the Republic of Turkey too. ISO codes are the International Standards Organisation codes. Thank you for confirming that Northern Cyprus uses Republic of Turkey Internet domain names (there are always domains whether they be Turkish, .com, or some other flavor of the month domain extension but there are no dedicated Northern Cyprus domain names, .nc.tr is a subset of the Turkish domain name). The other entities that you have mentioned are not comparable with Northern Cyprus. Not one of those has the majority of their land and property owned by displaced Cypriots, not one of those has the majority of their land and property owned by anybody else that has been displaced. Not comparable to the nth degree. Have started a new article for Freedom of religion in Northern Cyprus because somebody has to. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that no Georgian owns land in Abkhazia? And neither any Azeri owns land in Nagorno-Karabakh? Do you expect anyone to believe this? And I am amazed all Greeks (if you prefer, colonists) coming from Greece know Cypriot cuisine, it is the same thing. And yes, most of them are quite integrated in Cypriot culture, they speak some kind of Gibrizlidja and eat Cypriot food. I know what ISO means, but there are so many ISO codes that I cannot distinguish which one you mean before you say it. Yes, Northern Cyprus does not have an internet domain name on its own, but neither does Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. And actually it is quite usual for an unrecognized country to not to have these. They are barely comparable. And if we return to the subject, Northern Cyprus has a president, a government and administrative divisions for example, and they do not belong to Turkey of the Republic of Cyprus. They belong to Northern Cyprus, so they should be placed in the Outline of Northern Cyprus. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues that you have raised in the last couple of paragraphs are off-topic and tendentious (and some fictitious). Yes, I am 100% certain that the occupied territory called Northern Cyprus is an exceptional case and no other territory that you have cited is in a similar situation where the majority of the property and land is owned by the displaced. Greek colonists were not sent to Cyprus from Greece to fill an empty gap (as per Republic of Turkey) and certainly no ethnic minorities were forced to relocate to Cyprus (as Kurds were forced to relocate to Cyprus by the Republic of Turkey, and they had no choice). The President and government of Northern Cyprus are only recognised by the Republic of Turkey. To the rest of the world it is an administration of a militarily occupied territory. The subject that you are having difficulty discussing is whether or not the content of Outline of Northern Cyprus could just as easily be contained within Northern Cyprus, Outline of Cyprus, and Outline of Turkey. There is no content in Outline of Northern Cyprus that cannot be relocated. Even the new article called Freedom of religion in Northern Cyprus, which I created during this discussion, could be relocated to Outline of Turkey since it concerns the administration of a military occupation by the Republic of Turkey. Listing anything to do with the Turkish military in an outline called Outline of Northern Cyprus is redundant. Is it not enough to list it in Outline of Turkey and why do links about the Turkish military also need to be listed in an outline called Outline of Northern Cyprus? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this AfD itself is barely tendentious. There is a sovereign state called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, it does not matter how you call it and try to promote it, and it deserves an outline like any other unrecognized country, unless you try to promote the ideas of Greece and Republic of Cyprus. I cannot believe that we are discussing the notability of this state. That is why I voted speedy keep. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the notability of Northern Cyprus (you are doing that all by yourself). We are supposed to be discussing whether or not the content of Outline of Northern Cyprus could not just as easily be part of Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey (and merging the duplicate content of Outline of Northern Cyprus to Northern Cyprus) since there is no original content that cannot be listed there. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and wikipedia doesn't deal with legitimacy issues, but notability ones.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing legitimacy issues either. This separate Outline links to content that could easily be linked from Outline of Cyprus and Outline of Turkey and you wouldn't know the difference. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could not because Northern Cyprus has a different president, prime minister, different ministers, political parties, international relations, and a different government. Is Derviş Eroğlu the president of Turkey or the Republic of Cyprus? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JuniorWorld Song[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Only google hits are to the two articles created today by the same editor. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Delete all. This user's new articles have consistently been hoaxes, so in the absence of any reliable sources confirming the existence of this competition, I'm assuming that it is also a hoax. I've blocked the creator for a week for continuing to create nonsense articles after repeated warnings to cut it out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as probably a hoax, but definitely failing verifiability in spectacular fashion with no coverage in any sources, reliable or otherwise. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Per above. There appears to be no source to verify these. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa M. Kelly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet relevant notability guideline (unnotable), the only sources provided are her own website and her self-published book at Lulu.com (i.e. a complete absence of reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify the information provided in the article have failed.Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not notable, no reliable sources, only self-published sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Can't establish notability with reliable sources. C6541 (T↔C) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce untitled album[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deprodded at least once because some information is available about the possible album release. The fact that the artist is trying to release a new album but has been obstructed by legal trouble could be a notable matter at the artist's article. For now, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER there is not nearly enough info available for a stand-alone album article. Talk about the whole mess at the artist's article until the album gets much closer to reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BALL. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete absence of reliable sources. I agree that anything that needs to be said about this album, or why it isn't being released, is better said at the artist's article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duh-duh-duh, (duh-duh), duh-duh-duh, Can't touch this Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced speculation as per WP:CRYSTAL. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, speculating stuff without any sources, WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the material related to the now-redirected article of Aron Erlichman such as "When We Ride (Dead In Ditches Remix)" and "The Two Thousand Eight - LP". --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 07:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Farm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Name doesn't appear on the Bing map - I assume we're talking about the bump about 1.3km east of Hollingbourne. Can't find any other indication of WP:NOTABILITY - there's some passing mentions in gazetteers for Hollingbourne Hill or Hollingbourne station at 616 ft, but that seems a bit short in any case. Le Deluge (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is in Hollingbourne, not Harrietsham as the article claims. High Wood is marked, but the point is not named on the OS map. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No mentions in Google Books or Scholar either. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a hill hey? Just a regular hill? No faeries living under it? Nope, don't see how this meets WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, A7. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts4heart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable charity; notability not established by third-party reliable sources that are verifiable. Possible WP:COI. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7 or G11: no plausible assertion of notability and the purpose is wholly promotional. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Rrburke. --bonadea contributions talk 14:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by an indefinitely-blocked abuser of multiple accounts. –MuZemike 00:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Thompson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional article, diploma mill mail order degree, some dubious references Mikeyasadie (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - speedy keep for what its worth . "founder and president of Family Harvest International, a network of Christian congregations with locations around the world " - clearly en wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment main part of notability is only passing mention in an obituary--Mikeyasadie (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you have nominated in good faith, but he looks clearly notable here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy keep--he is obviously notable. But how is the article "promotional"? You can say that about any biography of a living person on Wikipedia. Me and another editor have been working on the article to remove all POV content that it previously had. You mentioned that his doctorate degree is 'mill mail order' -- we did make a note that it was obtained from an unaccredited institution so I really don't understand this AfD. Adotrde (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as being obviously notable. The nomination claims are all items that can and should be dealt with on the talk page. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- note - nominator has been indefinitely blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scribner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails criteria in WP:BIO, no substantive coverage, all the references are mere mentions, "noted bankruptcy attorney" can't be gleaned from the sources, and being president of a local professional theatre group, chair of a county committee and member of a non-profit doesn't fulfil criteria in WP:BIO either Hekerui (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources confirm that he exists, that he is an attorney, that he handles bankruptcy cases and is occasionally quoted in the newspaper in articles about bankruptcy. Sources also confirm that he is president of the local community theater and chair of a county Bar Association committee. All very commendable, but not adding up to notability as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rivera-Ortiz Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for criteria in WP:NONPROFIT as there are no reliable independent third party sources, only blogs and promo material, article is a mere advertisement Hekerui (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Comment - I created the article, as I believe it to be a notable young organization meeting both standards in WP:NONPROFIT: (a) the scope of the foundation's activities is international in scale, and (b) information about the organization and its activities can be verified by reliable independent third-party sources (not just blogs and promo material). Please bear in mind that this organization was established recently, and further sources should be found within the next few weeks. ConcernedPhotographer (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage of substance in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article at the time I reviewed it consists of press releases, blogs, and announcements which amount to press release rehashes; none of which amounts to independent significant coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it is a brand-new organization, it might become notable in the future. If Reliable Sources begin to take note of it, an article could be written then. But for now it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scream 3: The Album[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is over 5 years old and has had only a handful of edits in that time, lacks any sources or citations or contributes anything that isn't already on the Scream 3 page. Therefore I believe it to be superfluous to the project and it would seem obvious no one has any interest in contributing to it in any such way to change that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT For clarification, I have not based htis nomination on the number of edits to the page, just remarking on the articles age tied with its apparently low interest or involvement that indicate it may stay in its current shape for the next 5 years. Though props to Tarc for making some improvements.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spent 14 weeks on the Billboard 200, peaking at 32. Meets WP:NALBUM criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but like I said, everything that is in this article is already in Scream 3 article.

Keep Per Tarc - passes WP:NALBUM. "The article is over 5 years old and has had only a handful of edits in that time" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator is correct that the article needs improvement and expansion. But sparse editing activity is not a reason for deletion; see WP:NOEFFORT. Also, quantity of edits has nothing to do with notability, which is the real issue to be tackled in deletion discussions. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Scre4m!Captain Marshalls (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought I'd say this, but Keep per Tarc. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rose Kaplan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography of a living person, questionable notability per WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her plays do have some relatively substantial reviews: for example Ken Jaworowski in the NY Times (2009), Eric Grode in the Village Voice (2009), Channing Gray in the Providence Journal (2008) (though the latter part of a group review). AllyD (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied and extended references in the article. The NY Times review and Kennedy award demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a play produced in Manhattan and reviewed by the NYTimes is something that 99+% of American playwrights only dream of, and pretty much establishes notability on its own. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in article demonstrates notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expatial[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the name of a new "proprietary patented method" of hardening steel and other metals. PROD removed (by the PRODder) because the author planned to add citations from laboratory testing - see discussion on talk page - but it is clear from that discussion, and from searches, that this is too new to satisfy the requirement of WP:NEO and WP:Notability for reliable secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as thinly disguised commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apologies for my oversight in re-PRODding when I ought to have raised for discussion, thanks to John for picking up on this. As per the PROD, as well as appearing to fail NEO, my searches on GBooks and GNews show nothing for this method or materials. If the materials were discussed in independent reliable sources then I would expect an article could be created without having to use trademarked terminology as the article title. --Fæ (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cleverly-disguised piece of spam. Alexius08 (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harriman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was prodded with the rationale "Young footballer who fails WP:NSPORT#Association football by never having played at a fully-professional level, no sources to suggest general notability." Prod removed by an anonymous editor without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable footballer. Can't find any significant sources, I think fails WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Non-admin closure, result was redirect. No problem with history merge, as this is just a split of its parent article. Bob talk 22:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is obsolete due to merely copying information from Horrible Histories. Article is not notable. Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horrible Histories. Unless there is consensus there to split that information to a side article, no reason for this to exist as a duplicate. Dream Focus 10:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as I suppose there is scope to expand in the future. Bob talk 17:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett as pages created by a blocked user in violation of a block (CSD G5). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011 in the Libyan Civil War[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply put, this article is not a Wikipedia article but more of a news dump; this is recentism at its worst.

and

- –MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion along with the above article per nominator's rationale:

- -DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Adding Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War was clearly a bad faith WP:POINT revenge act by the author of the other articles. Since the author has strenuously argued below for "keep", it makes no sense for them to say that another article should be deleted by the same rationale. In addition, much of the discussion below does not apply to that article, as is clear on reading it, so in the unlikely event that someone genuinely thinks it should be deleted, it should have a separate AfD. I was not the one who struck out that post, but I agree with the editor who did so. DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, the author of these articles, was a sockpuppet of SuperblySpiffingPerson, who has a history of using numerous sockpuppets for disruptive editing. Amongst countless disruptive edits, this author refactored MuZemike's comment below, to make it say something slightly different than it originally did. (I have restored MuZemike's version.) Needless to say, the account is now indefinitely blocked. This article qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G5 (creation by a blocked user in defiance of the block). I would have speedy-deleted it, but for the fact that there has been quite a bit of discussion here, so I thought it better to let the AfD run its course. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 08:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a subarticle of the Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War which had become grossly oversize of the 40-60kb prose limit defined at WP:SIZERULE. That article had gone to 273kb and growing. Now all the subarticles are a chance of getting in limit if not already so. The Libya Civil War article became too large and hence the timeline article was broken out of it and now these sub-timeline article have to be broken out because of the same issue. I'm afraid the issue will otherwise persist until the leaders of the Libyan opposition negotiate to step down from power and accept exile or otherwise end their treachery with its elements of foreign collaboration. Meanwhile out database will do well to keep a good coverage of developments which WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL/WP:SOFIXIT requires us not to sneer at as a "news dump".

Simple inquiries reveal that timeline articles abound across our database, eg. Timeline of the 2009 Iranian election protests. They have usefulness and are unquestionably permitted by Wpedia policy.DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate the Timeline article itself for deletion; you nominated it there yourself. That was not my intent. I don't think a timeline itself is bad, but when a timeline consists of nothing but single-sentence-paragraph mentions of news pieces to the point of it getting too large, then it needs to be scaled back and rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion. This, so far, has not been done. –MuZemike 09:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is some very odd and highly POV editing going on here. If this article is deleted, we should make sure the information is restored to the original article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war. Seaphoto^Talk 09:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (or rather merge back into timeline article). Notable and at least some of it is verifiable. But the level of detail is too much for an encyclopedia, there is no coherence, and it is largely reporting the rebel perspective on the war (perhaps because there are fewer reports from the loyalist side). The rebel news organisation, http://www.libyafeb17.com/, is cited extensively, and is clearly going to be as biased as the loyalist one. Weak delete because I could be persuaded that these should be kept, but not in their current format. I think Late_March_2011_in_the_Libyan_Civil_War should be added to the discussion, and that User:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil should produce a separate AfD discussion for Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War if he genuinely feels it should be deleted. Jll (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are part of the same complex and do best to be considered together. It will not be acceptable that one editor may include two articles of the complex into the AFD of a first when and another participating may not include another. This is why. If the subarticles go then the parent article also should go. They all have the same 'newsdump' style, or they will have if everything is merged back into the parent after all. If that merge happens we will not only have the unliked style, it will have the second strike against it of being incorrigibly oversize. The subsplitting has solved the oversize problem and provides a way forward to address the style objections. Style objections aren't dealt with by just deleting the whole thing, they're achieved by retaining to copyedit. The nominator hasn't even attempted that step and I would doubt it lends much improvement. After all, these things are TIMELINES, and they therefore lend themselves to submenuing into year, month and day. Jus' sayin'. Articles about discrete battles are different. You can separate them into a para about the cause, another para about the tactics, another about the aftermath, and another about the order of battle and the names of commanders.

Say this war lasts as long as the Sri Lankan Civil War. It will have to be split down into time brackets.

Lastly I see below another user trespassing into distracting discussing into consideration of my talk history on issues other than the proper discussion this nomination rationale. Pal, you be very careful to improve your act on that score.DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree that if the subarticles go then the parent article should go. My view is that the sub-pages should be merged, in reduced form, back into the original Timeline page. It would be nonsensical for me to argue that the Timeline page should then be deleted. One of my objections is that they contain too much detail — reduce the detail so reduce the size and then they will fit back into the parent. Jll (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in my opinion, this so-called splitting because of "WP:SIZERULE" is a mere ruse to inject some WP:NPOV into the prose. last stable version of main article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war&oldid=424474774 (edited by 96.232.126.111 (talk) at 04:32, 17 April 2011). one will see that the articles' creator, User:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, has numerous warnings on the editor's talk page (User Talk:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil) one may have to look at this editor's talk page. the editor has frequently transformed received warnings into "hidden text" so that, on the surface, the editor's talk page looks pristine. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep This doesn't belong at AFD, the event is obviously notable, as is the justifications for creating a timeline. There are an incredible amount of problems with these articles, all of which are typical for ongoing events, and should be handled on the talk page of the respective articles. Just as with the Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, it will be a little sloppy and heavily edited during the event, but it will settle out in time and get trimmed down to an appropriate size, then merged if that is appropriate at that time. Merge isn't a topic for AFD anyway. This is a historic event, drawing in the UN, NATO, and will have ramifications for decades, a timeline is certainly appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I did NOT nominate Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War for deletion, but DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil insists on lumping it in there. I am removing that from the list above. I have only nominated the three "month" articles for deletion; adding in the "timeline" article (against my wishes) is starting to prejudice this AFD. DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil, if you want deletion on that, please nominate that for deletion separately. –MuZemike 16:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete per reasons cited by MuZemike. Suggest semi-protection of Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war to prevent further edit wars. Changing from keep after DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil's ruse became clear.Ihosama (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Too much unprocessed detail for an encyclopedia. The word history includes the word story, and this information has no story to tell. Also, this is a POV-split. The article was created by a POV-pushing editor who split material from the original article without including text he disagreed with. This text which did not support his position was deleted, not moved to the sub-article. What the original article needs is to have it trimmed in size so that only the most important events are listed, not split into several equally unprocessed articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we need to be careful with trimming ATM. Much of the timeline article is not reproduced in topic-specific articles. However i.e. the initial protests section could be reformed, cited by the timeline which gets trimmed at the same time. Later we can move on other time sections, slowly trimming the article from its start, always leaving the tail to live its live.Ihosama (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Asd has been pointed out above, this so-called splitting because of "WP:SIZERULE" is a mere ruse. It was part of an elaborate and well thought out plan to make numerous changes in various palces to hide the true purpose, which was to conveniently lose elements that the editor did not like, and substitute versions more in keeping with that editor's point of view. There is no good reason for having a host of little articles. Fragmenting the account into little pieces about tiny fragments of the whole story is not helpful in any way. We don't have an article on April 1944 in World War 2. I note that, apart from the author, the only editor here in favour of keeping is Dennis Brown, who says "the event is obviously notable" (but that is about whether to keep the content, not about whether it should be fragmented into separate articles, which is essentially what is at issue here); "a timeline is certainly appropriate" (but nobody except the sockpuppet author has suggested deleting Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War, and that suggestion was clearly a bad faith WP:POINT nomination); "then merged if that is appropriate at that time" (but gives no reason why it isn't appropriate now); "Merge isn't a topic for AFD anyway" (yes it is). JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cogent arguments by Binksternet and JBW. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Alexius08 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War. As Alexius said. We do not need more splits to further complicate matters, the main article should be about the background of the war, as well as the causes and the timeline remain as the timeline of events, not spitted into months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimlanin (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one article. No need for a wacky split like the Arabic Wikipedia.--Rafy talk 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War, but remove poorly-sourced, insignificant and overly-detailed facts and information, per Dennis Brown. There is absolutely no need to remove so much useful content from Wikipedia, and just because these articles are on the same topic, they are on different levels of specificity and cannot all be considered as one "package". Also, I believe all of the discussion on the WP:SIZERULE "ruse" is irrelevant. Wikipedia doe not have a single author, and there is no "true purpose" behind any article, unless it was evidently only written by one contributor; here, that is not the case. Again, I say all important information should be kept, but this is certainly not to be a news-feed for random people. --Interchange88 ☢ 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; all the stuff on this pages was copied 1:1 from the main article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war by user:DontHammerMuammarRepealJalil a POV vandal with a bunch of other socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson/Archive). Probably he thought that when he splits the articles his massive Pro-Gaddafi-POV edits (like this BS) would not be so easily discovered by other editors as on the heavily edited and watched article Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war. noclador (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete No need to spend time analyzing a WP:CRYSTAL article created by a banned user. Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War as per above 75.37.41.119 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC) (or Ansh666 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC) when logged in)[reply]

Comment There is _nothing_ to merge! See noclador's comment above.92.52.55.29 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline page used to only link to the new pages, but it's been reverted, I see. Ansh666 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please close and delete[edit]

Please close and delete as the vandal who created this 3 copy&paste articles to better hide his vandalism, keeps coming back to vandalize the main article every day again: [3], [4], [5],... for details please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson/Archive. Therefore: close this discussion now and delete the 3 things SuperblySpiffingPerson created. noclador (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

second the motion. these articles should have be dealt a "speedy delete" at the onset.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Talib[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of meeting WP:PROF notability guidelines. noq (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While he may actually be notable, the only source given is in Arabic and probably not a reliable source. I couldn't find better sources, either. Unless some are added to the article, he does not satisfy WP:PROF or the general notability guideline. Huon (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few cites in GS but not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7 by User:Quarl. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Anderson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New author who doesn't appear to have widespread coverage at this time Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Writer (singer/songwriter/producer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No third party links. Further research appears to show only a large number of self populated or social networking sites. getting a song on iTunes is not a big deal. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, unsourced, no proof pf notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, and comments from Spada2. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also found nothing. The individual does not appear to meet any notability criteria. - MrFizyx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability unclear, not established. ("show, don't tell.") Page doesn't describe the person, but rather an event, and so fails WP:BLP1E. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails almost every test on the Notability guideline page, but especially fails because "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Quigley (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, a quick google and google news search returns ~~nothing~~ two results, one of which he is mentioned in a large list of names. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kind of strange that you say "google news search returns nothing". First result when clicking "news" above is a 1998 title story on Li Hai by the Washington Post. The next one is a 1999 story on Chinese dissidents by The Guardian, mentioning Li Hai prominently. And these aren't the only articles covering his story. In my opinion, he passes WP:ANYBIO. --bender235 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea which google news feature you used (perhaps there's a region difference since i'm using the UK version, or something), here's my results. [6] The only two results are from toronto star (where he is one person from a long list of names) and spero news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the link "news", from the Find sources list above. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And also, see WP:oneevent. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply, because he is notable for more than one event. Read the article. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both references talks about his involvement in the 1989 incident and the later investigation he had, which was what he got arrested for. Even the article it self says that, he was only involved in the Tiananmen Square event. What is the other event(s) you are talking about? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First there was his involvement in the Tiananmen square massacre in 1989, and second his show trial for treason in 1995. He is as notable as any other Chinese dissident on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you see, the 1995 one was for hooliganism, but he was quickly sentenced to prison in 1996. These two are related. And the 1996 was for the investigation on Tiananmen Square. So they are just one thing. And I quote the Guardian article 'Collecting lists is a dangerous occupation in China. Li Hai spent four years gathering data on more than 800 people punished in the post-Beijing massacre crackdown. In 1995 he was accused of "hooliganism" and put in a detention camp. In 1996 the student, born in 1955, was sentenced to nine years in Beijing's Liangxiang prison for "prying into high-level state secrets'.Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a weird argument. Just because the data he collected, and was sentenced to prison for, was about Tiananmen square prostesters doesn't mean his trial and the Tiananmen prostest were "one event". That's ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- According to WP:ANYBIO:
  >The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
  >The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
  The first one is nil, the second one is disputable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of any notability guideline is "[...] who have received significant press coverage". Which Li Hai did. End of discussion. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Li Hai is definitely notable, he is one of the prominent dissidents. He was active in 1989, signed a pro-democracy statement and is currently in arrest. This is reported by The Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times. Waikiki lwt (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep. Careful news search reveals enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple RSs and not just one event. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China. As demonstrated by the multiple reliable source, the subject passes WP:BIO. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice WP:ADHOM there. I know I might be handsome, but argue the content, not me. For a taste of your own medicine, this edit summary makes you look just as partisan. Now, see how WP:ATTACKs and ad hominem arguments are pointless? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, commenting on an observed editing pattern of an editor does not constitute personal attack. Read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China
>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove non-notable BLP pages and hubbub that seems to be used by editors with activist-like tendencies to make their WP:ADVOCACY clear
Fixed that for you. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no advocacy in the Li Hai article. It is a neutral description of what he did and what happened to him.

And by the way: try to stay away from the paintbox. No need to color this page like a rainbow. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unless you're using Google China, you should get lots of results. Alexius08 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to 2011, I see you've gotten off the airport shuttle from 2006. There is no Google China. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Trout the nominator. Plenty of third-party coverage of this individual. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Yunfei[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability questionable due to WP:BOMBARD; biography entirely unsourced; "Current situation" section suggests WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Of the citations used, two are 404 links to pages on boxun.com that do not exist, and two are from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website, which does not meet WP:RS requirements as it is not a WP:NPOV source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not obtained parasitically by proximity to a notable event (the 2011 Chinese Twitter non-revolution). The arrest event that included him was a news story, but if he were as famous as CHRD's campaign boasts, then he should have had reliable source coverage before then. Quigley (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only involved in one event (2011 Chinese protests) and no RS mentioning him before that (per Quigley).Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Even putting aside all the current RS descriptions of him as a "prominent dissident," "prominent blogger," etc, there's a great deal of other substantial coverage: Jan 2010, "one of China's most famous online commentators" [7]; Dec 2009, NYTimes, "Ran Yunfei, a well-known blogger in Sichuan Province who signed the manifesto [Chrter 08]" [8]; dec 2008, "Ran Yunfei, a famous critic" [9]; attempts by the PRC govty to suppress his writings were reported by Reporters Without Borders as far back as 2009 [10]. This nomination doesn't hold a drop of water. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem to be clearly enough sources, and his notability extends over a considerable period. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Oh Jesus! The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China. As demonstrated by the multiple reliable source, the subject passes WP:BIO. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice WP:ADHOM there. I know I might be handsome, but argue the content, not me. For a taste of your own medicine, this edit summary makes you look just as partisan. Now, see how WP:ATTACKs and ad hominem arguments are pointless? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, commenting on an observed editing pattern of an editor does not constitute personal attack. Read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China
>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove non-notable BLP pages and hubbub that seems to be used by editors with activist-like tendencies to make their WP:ADVOCACY clear
Fixed that for you. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply, WP:ANYBIO does. Notable. --bender235 (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:ANYBIO:
  >The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
  >The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
  The first one is nil, the second one is disputable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per press coverage, see User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment. --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are four reference sites. CHRD is an activist group. Boxun is activist as well, as is Asianews (see Asianews' about us page, they are anti-government pro christian). There is not problem having a few activist references in an article as long as it is kept NPOV and unbiased. ~~All~~ All but one (there's a reuters one) references from this article came from activist groups. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per sources and arguments provided by "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz". Sufficient sources more that one event and no valid policy based reason for deletion. IQinn (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This guy is not only one of the historical figures among Chinese dissidents, since he was active in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, but he signed the Charta 08 and his blog is widely read. — Waikiki_lwt ^{Talk | contribs | email} 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Wei (dissident)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP article that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Of the citations used, one is a blog, two are from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website which is not a WP:NPOV source, and two are 404 links to boxun.com where the pages do not exist. notability is questionable, and references seem to resemble WP:BOMBARD. The only news references used seem to suggest WP:BLP1E. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the unsubstantiated superlatives from a pressure group, this man is just one name in a dozen of people who are routinely arrested for rabble-rousing in second-tier cities. Quigley (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYTimes coverage [11] contradicts the trivializing commentary in the nomination, and the Times's treatment of the Chines Human Rights Defenders organization as a credible and reliable source deeply undermines the nom's sourcing arguments. Many advocacy groups, like Amnesty International, have well-earned reputations for accuracy, and the nom et al present no rational basis for rejecting the reputation of reliability indicated by the Times and other news organizations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does the Times treat CHRD "as a credible and reliable source"? It just attributes a quote to it. When Wikipedia does the same thing, prefacing information from an organization with "According to x, a y...", that usually indicates that the source is unreliable. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple good sources, besides the NYT: G news now shows Bloomberg, ABC, Reuters as well as the NYT. sufficient importance likely to be permanent. Obviously, it would be good to have information about the earlier part of his career before this that led him to be considered a dissident, which makes it not one-event.

Keep - Notability demonstrated in footnotes showing. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China. As demonstrated by the multiple reliable source, the subject passes WP:BIO. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make personal attacks; focus on the content. The only "reliable sources" that have briefly mentioned this man all got their information from China Human Rights Defenders, which is a contentious, partisan and interested source. When we speak about the basic criteria for notability, we are looking for "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", which we do not have in the case of Chen Wei, because he is a low profile individual, is likely to remain a low profile individual, and is only notable for one event, which is his arrest in a tumultuous time. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Nice WP:ADHOM there, Reference Desker. I know I might be handsome, but argue the content, not me. For a taste of your own medicine, this edit summary makes you look just as partisan. Now, see how WP:ATTACKs and ad hominem arguments are pointless? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, commenting on an observed editing pattern of an editor does not constitute personal attack. Read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China
>The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove non-notable BLP pages and hubbub that seems to be used by editors with activist-like tendencies to make their WP:ADVOCACY clear
Fixed that for you. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Human Rights Defenders may be a partisan source, but that is not a ground for AfD. Since there statement is published by secondary reliable sources, it passes WP:N. The issue is notability. The New York Times has a coverage that is exclusively dedicated to report the arrest of this person. Here are some more coverage I found:

In Crackdown by Chinese, a New Arrest, The New York Times, "A human rights advocate in Sichuan has been formally arrested and charged with inciting subversion against the state, according to a statement on Wednesday by China Human Rights Defenders, an advocacy group that tracks violations by the Chinese government. The advocate, Chen Wei, was charged on Monday, and his family was notified on Tuesday. Mr. Chen is the third person in recent days to be charged with inciting subversion in an extraordinarily harsh crackdown on progressives in China that has been unfolding since late February."
Sichuan: new arrests for Jasmine Revolution supporters, AsiaNews.it, "Pro-democracy dissidents Ding Mao and Chen Wei are arrested for praising street protests against bad government and corruption. The family of pro-democracy activist Chen Wei in Suining (Sichuan) was also informed that he too was formally charged with “inciting subversion”. Chen was arrested on 20 February." --Reference Desker (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here are two more coverages. CNN has a coverage that is exclusively dedicated to report the arrest of Chen Wei.

Chinese dissidents held in bid to stem revolution, The Irish Times, "Chen Wei (42), a critic of China’s one-party system who lives in Sichuan, was arrested on charges of inciting subversion of state power"
Group: Activist arrested in ongoing crackdown in China, CNN, "Chinese officials have jailed another activist in what some have called an ongoing government crackdown on would-be protesters, a rights group said Thursday. Activist Chen Wei was formally arrested Friday after spending five days in detention, the Hong-Kong based China Human Rights Defenders said." --Reference Desker (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT and AsiaNews.it are not "more coverage"; they're the same old "reliable" sources that we have been discussing. The CNN and IrishTimes pieces are the same as the NYT, because they all are attributing from CHRD, and "exclusively dedicated" or not, they all have only one or two sentences about him, which really relates to his arrest (the rest is background information about the recent events); such paltry information such as that he lives in Sichuan. AsiaNews.it, by the way, is very questionable, considering that it is a Catholic missionary website with an obvious anti-CPC viewpoint (while the New York Times reported, for example, that Gao Zhisheng says he was tortured, AsiaNews.it reported that he was tortured). The only semblance of detail that we can get is from the CHRD website, which is not reliable. Again, he is only notable for one event in which he was one among hundreds, and he does not and will not have sustained, multiple, independent coverage, because his normal activity is simply not noteworthy. Human rights groups will listen to every allegation that a person is missing, gather all of the information that they can about them (and embellish it to make them seem important), and will publicize it to try to get them freed. That's how the workers get their salaries. But I would hope that Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, has a higher standard for writing about somebody. Quigley (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be off-topic but a passing note because you said "Human rights groups will listen to every allegation that a person is missing, gather all of the information that they can about them (and embellish it to make them seem important), and will publicize it to try to get them freed. That's how the workers get their salaries." Yes they will gather information about every single arrest, because it IS a human right not be coerced for non-violently exercising freedom of speech. This this right belong to all, no matter how insignificant they are to the authorities. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether what these people were doing was within their human rights or not is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Human rights advocacy groups, at least when dealing with such Bad Countries as China, take the most expansive view of human rights, the most diminutive view of a state's right to keep law and order, the most trusting and uncritical view towards the accusations of dissidents, and the most skeptical and dismissive view towards the accusations of authorities. This is their POV; their purpose, and it is not surprising. This POV is why we prefer high-quality sources, like scholarly sources, for documenting the lives of people and historical events. This requirement is why we cannot write a neutral, disinterested, and quality-sourced biography of Chen Wei, because the only organization who is documenting his life is the same organization that is advocating for his release from prison and working round-the-clock to undermine the government. Quigley (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Re: Reference Desker: But do we really need an article for every single dissident? Because this is where I see this leading to. Kind of strange how an editor seemed to turn every single listed name on China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents as a redlink; is the next trend to make an article for every single one of them? Why why, they're all covered in CHRD references and all, they must be all valid articles, right? Right? This is when this kind of thing starts to get out of hand. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not Ref Desker, but I'd respond with we don't NEED anything, but we SHOULD have articles on dissidents who have been the subject of coverage by multiple sources, as this one has by the links to the NYT and others demonstrate. -- ۩ Mask 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep. Chen Wei complies with WP:N, he is not only well-known since he was one of the student leaders in the pro-democracy movement 1989, but he was active in addressing human rights issues in Sichuan, before he now got arrested. The references also comply with WP:RS. — Waikiki_lwt ^{Talk | contribs | email} 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is now a well-referenced article. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in the article should be improved, and there are issues with a few of the sources, as noted - but the NYT, LA Times, and others seem to think that this individual is notable enough to cover - which is good enough for me. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - the afd process shouldnt be used by chinese communists to delete material on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh seems fairly minor, and the coverage is unconvincing. He is mostly notable for recent coverage (which is something of a fad in Westernjhournalism, but that is another topic). If we have an article that covers these events/arrests in depth then the current content is more relevant there. Otherwise those voting such strong "keep" should be providing sourcing that expands upon the single event currently covered. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Someone can create a redirect if they wish. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Shuangde[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E, and hence WP:N. Does not meet WP:RS requirements: of the two citations available, one is a blog, and another from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website, which is not a WP:NPOV source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity page of a one-hit wonder who is impossible to cover neutrally since he is only covered by blogs and advocacy websites. Quigley (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above. Violates WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlqq2144 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Complies with WP:N as a lawyer defending people who cannot afford it for free and with WP:N as a human rights activist. Besides the indicated references, which mostly comply with WP:RS, he has been reported upon in April in Chinese 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Japanese, Italian 1 2, French, German, and English. Definitely worth an article. — Waikiki_lwt ^{Talk | contribs | email} 09:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you do realise that the Chinese sources come from Epoch times (pro-FG, anti-PRC) and Asianews (pro-Christian missionary, anti-PRC), both are activist/partisan groups.Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 09:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the Italian ones come from Asianews too. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 10:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to some appropriate article about recent events in China. In the non-self-published sources, the subject is only mentioned as a lawyer working pro bono, but there is nothing about him apart from that mention. This is not enough to support a biographical article per WP:BIO. The article can be restored if the subject is covered by reliable secondary sources in some depth. Sandstein 07:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion: CSD G3. - Vianello (Talk) 21:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Socialist Front[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article may be a hoax. The creator is now banned, and I can't find anything significant about the topic on the internet, aside from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Even if not a hoax, the lack of coverage would indicate that it was not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any coverage in either English nor Spanish. Only a couple of wikipedia mirrors, and an unrelated political party with the same name in Portugal. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HOAX - no coverage in Spanish nor English (useless anyways) Diego Grez (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything in google news/books using a couple of search terms. GabrielF (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find zero Google hits on this "party's" purported martyr, Camilla de Jongh. Looks rather like a hoax. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll go for a hoax too. Quite nicely set up, bringing Strasserism in. The author is blocked indefinitely, by the way, not banned. Different procedure. Peridon (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petroff Air[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "airline" does not have an air operators certificate issued by Rosaviatsiya, and is more of a charter broker -- these types of companies are a dime a dozen. The PROD was removed on the basis of the company winning a non-notable livery design awared as part of its participation in a non-notable air show in egypt. Even then, there is nothing available which discusses this airline in any great depth other than passing or trivial mentions to give it any degree of notability. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this is an air charter company, however it does fail WP:CORP regardless of whether it is a broker or owns its own aircraft, notwithstanding the award for having a snazzy paint job. I found no coverage other than of the "Petroff orders Scruggs Wonderjet" variety, which would be akin to a company being somehow notable if it bought a luxury boat for charter use. YSSYguy (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore N. Kaufman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kaufman wrote a pamphlet in 1941 called Germany Must Perish which argued for the sterilization of the German people in order to prevent further wars. The book attracted a small amount of attention in the US (basically a sarcastic review in Time magazine), however the Nazis learned about the book and they used it as propaganda to argue that the Jews had declared war on Germany. The Nazis said that Kaufman was a close ally of Roosevelt, but in fact he was a nobody. In a 1944 article about the book, The Nation referred to Kaufman as "an obscure businessman" and noted that "few Americans have ever heard of [him]". [12] The wikipedia article notes that he disappeared from the public eye after September 1941. The book is notable, Kaufman himself is not. This article makes very dubious claims (that he addressed Congress in 1939 for instance - Time magazine only says that he urged Congress, which anyone can do from anywhere in the world) which, I believe, are intended to make Kaufman seem more significant than he was in order to allow people to repeat Goebel's claim that Kaufman's book demonstrated a significant Jewish threat to Germany. GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure does not mean he is not-notable by Wikipedia standards. I would have to say that 99.9999% of biographies in Wikipedia are about obscure people. There are only a few thousand people with high Q Scores like recent presidents and major movie stars and major athletes. Everyone else is obscure. My state senators are obscure, I can't name either of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the author for being insignificant, then the article on the book should be removed as well, since they are inextricably related. The author wrote several books and caused a major uproar which influenced Nazi Germany. There is NO reason to remove the article.

the review in Time was NOT "sarcastic", although I appreciate your interest in downplaying its influence.

the fact that the Nazi's thought he was "somebody" makes "WHO HE IS" an important component of history.

Few Americans have ever heard of a prominent fellow-citizen named Kaufmann or know that he is one of President Roosevelt's most intimate friends and advisers. In Germany, every child has known of him for a long time.

Ernest Hemingway adopted the beliefs of Kaufman.

Kaufman himself admitted that he talked to Congress

If you have improvements to offer, do so, but requesting wholesale deletion would require that this issue be escalated to a higher level.216.189.209.130 (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the appropriate forum for deletion requests to be discussed. There is no "higher level". Hemingway made a proposal similar to Kaufman's (perhaps jokingly). The source does not say that Hemingway was influenced by Kaufman, merely that the two stated a similar idea. The Time article states that: "But in 1939 it had appeared as chairman of the American Federation of Peace, which urged Congress either 1) to keep the U. S. out of Europe's wars, or 2) to sterilize all Americans so that their children might not become homicidal monsters." This does not mean that Kaufman personally addressed or talked to Congress. (If he did, than there would probably be some mention of that fact in either the Washington Post or the NY Times which I could not find). It merely states that he "urged Congress". I could post flyers around town urging Congress to do something. That wouldn't make me notable. The fact that Kaufman was briefly well known in Germany is entirely related to his book. The Nazis made up a fake story about him being influential to go along with the book. That can be dealt with in a paragraph in the article about the book. A separate article about Kaufman is unnecessary. The article Germany Must Perish states that Kaufman's other books were insignificant. GabrielF (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we don't have articles on those publications, but that doesn't have a bearing on his own notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —GabrielF (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the author passes the notability guidelines. My reading of the times piece suggests he actually addressed congress (but I admit it could be clearer), so he does have some notability independent of the book. That said, the coverage of the book in the bio article is redundant, and that section(s) should be gutted and replaces with a brief summary and a see also to the book article. Monty ₈₄₅ 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the source of the Congress business. In 1939, Time reported that a group called the American Federation of Peace was mailing out some particularly grisly postcards to people, one of which said: ""A possible plea to Congress. . . . 'HAVE US ALL STERILIZED! . . . IF YOU PLAN ON SENDING US TO A FOREIGN WAR . . . SPARE US ANY POSSIBILITY OF EVER BRINGING CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD—INTO THIS COUNTRY OF OURS!'" Kaufman is not mentioned. [13] GabrielF (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. This is a quintessential example of a resoundingly obscure individual notable for involvement in a single event, well described in the book article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. I don't see that, even if he really did address Congress, that would make him notable beyond the single phenomenon. DBaba (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E with a redirect to Germany Must Perish!. He's obviously notable for only one event. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the events that he is listed in Time magazine and the New York Times for do you think is his one event? The one in 1934, the one one in 1939 or the one in 1941? Coverage goes well into the 1990s in books. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article provides context to his historically significant book. I suppose one might merge the two articles, but why? I am very much opposed to snuffing this information without merger. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Give it time to develop and then revisit. At this time there is still potential for further information to be located that further addresses notability to determine whether it is fringe or over the line. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be sufficient material for a stand alone article on him. I don't believe the one-event is valid since biographical information in the New York Times starts in 1934 before publication of his book. His American Federation of Peace has a short article in 1939 in Time magazine. He has biographical material published in 1995, fifty years after writing his book. See the additional references that I added. All should have been found by others who voted delete, who did so without doing any research, outside of reading the article as it was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I would have to agree that he is only notable for one event. That the article seems much longer now is only because a (now blocked) editor filled it out with a lot of non-NPOV details that were claimed to have been "translated from the German wikipedia." Once that stuff is removed and we stick to the single source that mentions the subject, we'll just have a stub that is redundant to the article on the book itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a man get that much press for his book, and not be notable? Google news only shows results from 1941. But click on Google book search and Google scholar search and you'll see that he and his work get mentioned elsewhere at times. If he wasn't notable, then he wouldn't still be getting mentioned decades later. Dream Focus 17:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! You missed 1934 because you used parenthesis in your search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per WP:1E and per Loonymonkey. Strip out all the redundant material about the book that is already in the book's article and you don't have much left. It then becomes WP:1E. He is not notable about the robbery in 1934, the "plea to Congress" (not appearing or talking with any member of congress) in 1939 or anything after the publication of the book. According to the article, his next and last publication after the book "received no reported attention in the press." Kaufman is the book. You don't mention Kaufman without mentioning the book. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia rule is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." That includes coverage of events from 1934, 1939 and 1941 and coverage up till 1995. 1934 isn't incidental if the New York Times devoted two articles to the robbery. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article that mentions anything about Kaufman after 1942. The 1934 robbery is incidental. The two New York Times articles about the robbery are behind a paywall. Do you happen to have a source or copy of the articles? Like to know what they say as I can't find anything else about the robbery. Except for one incidental robbery, everything about Kaufman is about the book. Kaufman should be mentioned on Wikipedia, but it should be in the article about the book as the two go hand in hand. Bgwhite (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two NYTimes articles. 1934 1 and 1934 2. My interpretation is that this was a business dispute that got out of hand, but was historically insignificant. Biographical coverage of Kaufman really revolves around the one book. The 1939 article doesn't mention Kaufman by name. FWIW Richard Arthur Norton has done a great job cleaning up the article. `GabrielF (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to mention him by name. If you took logic in Junior High School you would know the transitive property which means American Federation of Peace = Theodore N. Kaufman. We use synonyms all the time in Wikipedia. World War I = The Great War and many, many others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per historical significance, historical repercussions, and major recent improvements since nomination. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". WP:1E encourages such articles... not their deletion. We are here to increase a reader's understanding of a topic, not limit it. And note... Wikipedia's coverage of events of 1941 is not to be limited to only those thing notable to America or known only IN America. Notable to Germany, even "Reich" Germany through ramifications, if properly sourced (as this one is) is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fascinating spotlight on an aspect of American history in the years preceding and during World War II. Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Writing a book that was reviewed or discussed in Time magazine and The Nation and which had a demonstrable impact on Nazi-era German propaganda (to the extent of being singled out for commentary by Goebbels) does not strike me as the sort of "single event" contemplated by WP:1E. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Germany Must Perish!. Interesting content, but it's largely duplicated in that article; I don't see the need for both, given that Theodore Kaufman doesn't seem to have been particularly notable apart from that book. (For what it's worth, I'd be just as open to merging Germany Must Perish! into this article instead.) Robofish (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I don't see material that is substantial, substantially sourced, and substantially about Kaufmann save for GMP, and some of the early life stuff, e.g., the 1939 robbery feels coatracked as a result. (I recognize that other editors feel that material is more valuable.) Short of merge/redirect, I'd prefer keep, the GMP material is fascinating, I just don't think there's much biographical here save for the GMP content, and I think i'll be easier to maintain one good article about the GMP material (perhaps with some bio material on Kaufmann) than two articles with substantial repetition. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alansohn. Am open to separate merge discussion after AfD, but content is notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Dilthey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. I could only find a short article in local news and few mentions in books. Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Gets a passing mention in a book, and a passing mention in one article. There is no article about him in the German Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devine band[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable band. Prod was removed without explanation. Fails wp:music. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably could have been speedied as a high school band with one local newspaper article. 99.149.87.151 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could have been speedied, but with one weak citation, it likely would have gotten kicked back to AFD anyway. Having some issue with the article creator removing AFD tags, but think its just because he is new. Hopefully passed that now. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC -Cntras (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, appears to be promotional/vanity. --NellieBly (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Band. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish them well, but a teenage band whose most notable appearance is a "Battle of the Bands" type competition, isn't notable by the standards of WP:MUS or WP:GNG. The newspaper article is also not of the standard required of WP:RS in terms of demonstrating notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TapeTrack[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No hits for news or other RS, appears to be not notable. If it has sources besides the company's website, I could have looked there, but nothing could be found anywhere that passed wp:rs. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS and WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no references, no indication of significant coverage. Dialectric (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's Fan City[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting the criteria for notability. Lack of verifiable information in news or websites. The other problems (original research, no sources, style and bordering on spam) could be fixed, but you would still have a fixed article on a company that doesn't appear to be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find news articles on DFC because these people don't even use barcode scanners or cash registers in their stores, yet they are the largest INDEPENDENT retailer of ceiling fans in the USA. How is that not notable or relevant? They are not a publicly traded company, so information is not readily available, but give me a little time to put it all together. They've finally warmed up to the idea of selling their product online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatton (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Slatton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Working on documented proof of DFC being the largest independent retailer of ceiling fans in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatton (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, but we don't have a choice but to have a criteria that takes the subjectivity out of the equation. In short, a company must be notable (via WP:N) and it must be verifiable (via WP:V) Think about it: if we didn't require that, I could create an article called Wild Willy's Windows R Us, claim they are the largest in the world, and it would be kept, even though it is obviously complete bullocks. You aren't being singled out, you are being treated just like everyone else who creates an article. As a side note, I am very aware of Dan's Fan City, but I still couldn't find any newspaper articles or news about them. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Aside from the lack of significant coverage, the article is really just a bunch of unsourced hype. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google search finds only directory-type listings, confirming that the company exists and has multiple outlets, but nothing else. Google News finds a lot of hits but they are not about the company, they are along the lines of "so-and-so, owner of the local Dan's Fan City, said..." A search for "Dan's Fan City" plus "largest" [14] found a number of claims that they are the "largest independent ceiling fan and vacuum cleaner retailer" (vacuum cleaner???) but none of these hits appear to be independent of the company; they are ads, or are just repeating what the company said. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania Television[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources found. Fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google News archive finds nothing. The article has a few sources [15] [16] but probably not enough to pass the notability test. Too bad, sounds like a fun show! --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suha Çalkıvik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fixing nomination for Aircorn, as discussion was redlinked in the AfD log. Article is about a minor individual who doesn't seem to meet the guideline for notable people or the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for fixing this Dylan. Found it when clicking on reference a random biography. All I could find beyond trivial mention in sources was a link to his homepage and his profile at ITU. Even the information within the article does not provide a cause for much notability. Willing to be convinced otherwise. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Caged (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability standards, sources on article are a tabloid article and a mention in a music magazine, but it is not clear how significantly they are covered (perhaps somebody else has access?) Not sure its relevant but for the sake of full disclosure, article is created by a blocked sock. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:MUSIC, one mention in a RS isn't strong enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Hale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been deleted in an earlier discussion. Still doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would rather have seen the author take this to WP:DRV rather than just recreate it - it is only a few months since the first AfD closed as delete. That aside, the significant reviews cited in the article which now exist mean that WP:CREATIVE #4c: "has won significant critical attention" has been met. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My apologies for not following standard protocol; I'm still new to this and learning. What I can say is this: the book received significant (and, for what it's worth, very positive) reviews in the New York Times and Washington Post, among many other newspapers. That seems to me squarely in line with "having won sigificant critical attention." Numkinface (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Methods aside, clearly notable and cited. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mott Haven, Bronx. Sandstein 07:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North New York, Bronx[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article that is total OR and unsourced, and has been that way for a breathtaking seven years. Google discloses only incidental mentions in real estate listings and the like. Should be deleted or merged with Mott Haven, Bronx. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; merge it. There is a North New York Congregational Church; I may have a photo of it. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Nomiker has not been used for almost 100 years. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching through antiquarian books on Google I'm finding a bit on North New York, brief references insufficient for a separate article. Therefore I agree that a Merge with Mott Haven is the best outcome, though I guess that's tantamount to deletion since this article is only one paragraph. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gerlach Flicke. –MuZemike 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbarus Fleccius[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The picture shown is by Gerlach Flicke, as per that article and the National Portrait Gallery. There are no accessible sources cited, and a search around (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc) reveals nothing. I assume this is some kind of mistake; in any case, it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerlach Flicke; it's his Latin name. As a side note, you mention "no accessible sources," but the DNB was already cited at the time you nominated it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This being an obvious merge, the discussion should be closed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has a picture, source and small bit of info (i.e. Latin name he was also known by) so should be a merge to longer article rather than straight redirect. Definitely not a deletion candidate. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No understandable reason for deletion has been suggested. Sandstein 07:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Mason[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why noteable ? Didnt he even sell this business ? http://www.arielway.com/awpr030408.pdf Tampatwins (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination. If the subject was notable before he sold the business he founded, selling the business wouldn't cause his notability to disappear. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Nothing noteable now in the article as it stands. Tampatwins (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may comment all you like but only one bolded !vote per customer. As the nominator your nomination statement is your "delete" !vote. Also, please see notability is not temporary. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the cites are weak, but one or two are strong, and in the weak ones he is being quoted, which puts some credit into his words, ie: they think he is notable enough to quote. Totality of coverage seems to pass wp:gng without a problem. Didn't search outside of the cites within the article, which demonstrates the strength of the current references. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Still unsourced BLP, no award wins mentioned in the article. Sandstein 07:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S. John Ross (writer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longtime unreferenced BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the subject's relatively common name makes him a bit hard to search for I've come up with no reliable sources when searching for "John Ross" in conjunction with "Wizards of the Coast", "GURPS", "TSR", "Star Trek" or "Last Unicorn". All I can find are non-reliable forums, Wikipedia mirrors and the subject's own website. While I can confirm, through Amazon or Google Books, that he is indeed the author of the books claimed, I can find no reviews or other indications that he himself is notable. Perhaps someone more familiar with gaming will have better luck. Pburka (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - S. John Ross is influential and respected in the industry. Unfortunately, many of his major print contributions are from works that predate widespread internet use, so I can understand why it might be hard to find many sources online. His Origins award nomination for Pyramid is mentioned in the article, but alone is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO. I'll see what else I can dig up, time permitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangrolu (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is difficult to tell from an unreferenced article what his contribution to GURPS was but it won an Origins Award Hall of fame place, if he had a major contribution this would pass WP:ANYBIO.Tetron76 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article only mentions a singular nomination, which doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO. If someone could cross reference his list of works with at least one actual awards (or multiple nominations), that would pass WP:ANYBIO. - Sangrolu (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is only GURPS that has won awards [17] the problem is there have been lots of them. The only award that would matter for the anybio was the hall of fame but I cannot source it to confirm if Ross had an impact on this version.Tetron76 (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the awards seem to confer notability; otherwise, merge to List of role-playing game designers. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's no indication in the article that he's won any awards. It states he was nominated for one award. Pburka (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nor is there a source that confirms that putative nomination. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLPs should never be kept without being sourced, particularly those having sat unsourced for over seven years, and I don't see and have been unable to find sourcing here that would convey notability under the GNG or BASIC. Additional sources, as always welcome. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP and not notable. DLAwaster (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMTES DU GARDIN[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bogus self-promotion of Pierre du Gardin. Nothing in this article can be verified, even the described coat of arms is not listed in Johannes Rietstap's armorial which has several arms of "du Gardin", but one with a golden tree on sinople, not blue. Nothing on fr.wiki to substantiate the notability of this allegedly great noble family. There's also a du Gardin family website which is a different family though judging from the coat of arms. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established, and I could find nothing online that could be linked to this specific family. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of demonstrated or verifiable notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Mauk[edit]

Chuckie Mauk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable murder victim. Google News Archive only brings up 7 articles about the case. ^[9] A Google search only brings up 1,150 results. ^[10]Laladoodle92 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin – You may want to consider leaving this open 7 days from the 12th. Although the AfD was opened on the 9th the final steps were not completed until the 12th. ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD hasnt been correctly made. It has to be place an notice on the articles front page ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It has been added; however, I must say I would have expected an experienced editor such as yourself to have added it (or at least requested assistance in adding it) when you noted that it was lacking the final steps. ttonyb (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. I can find more hits with a search of "Chuck Mauk", however, nothing of real substance. Other than the Nancy Grace hit, there really isn't anything beyond local news coverage. Location (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there are reasons to believe that this person became notable beyond his own murder. The Jacob Wetterling connection, reward, nancy grace.. you can say whatever you like about Nancy but when she brings up a case its often highly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding every case that is on Nancy Grace would be like adding every case that's been on Unsolved Mysteries or America's Most Wanted to Wikipedia. This case wasn't on Nancy Grace on a continuous basis (like the Caylee Anthony case) but it was on Nancy Grace as part of a special she was doing on Cold Cases, where her show featured a different cold case everyday. Also, the reward is only $5000; not a notable amount. Laladoodle92 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:VICTIM. we don't create articles for every victim on the basis of a few articles. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:VICTIM. Not notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, Article was improved during the course of the AfD, all comments since improvement have been keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bat World Sanctuary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted. Reason, A7=Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. They are merely one of thousands of bat rehabilitators in the US alone. All of this entry is cut and paste from their website. There is no independent verification. Most of this entry was made by a member of the organization. Just because they write they are "world renown" does not make it so. LuLauren (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— LuLauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as it lacks notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as both Google News and Google Books shows in-depth coverage of this organization in reliable sources. Improve though normal editing rather than deleting. Note that nominator is a new single purpose account whose only contribution to Wikipedia so far is to try to delete this article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through your "Delete" !vote, LuLauren, because you are the nominator and your nomination itself is your recommendation to delete. You can participate in the debate as much as you want (based on policy and guidelines), but you can only recommend "Delete" or "Keep" once per debate. I hope you understand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response LuLauren, please study Wikipedia's deletion policies carefully before making further arguments for deletion. The article in question does not mention Amanda Lollar right now, or claim that she is a scientist. The article does not claim "international renown". Your use of words such as "frightened" and "vindictive" are not appropriate to a discussion of the article under discussion here. Wikipedia relies entirely on what reliable sources say about a topic, not at all on your personal opinions. What you say may or may not be true, but unless your charges are reported in reliable sources, they are irrelevant and will carry no weight in this debate. I will assume that you are acting in good faith, but must ask you to base your arguments on our established policies and guidelines. Editing by those with a conflict of interest can be corrected by further editing by those committed to the neutral point of view, if the topic itself is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article and added four sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Google books reveals sufficient non-trivial coverage to justify an article. Nomination strikes me as a little odd. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in the press appears to be quite common as the Google news search results show many hits. Perhaps not all of them represent substantial coverage but certainly enough of them do to establish notability. In addition to the references added to the article by Cullen328 (thanks!), there's also this and this as additional examples. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources added by Cullen, this story from CBS News asserts that the facility is "the largest bat rescue center on the planet". I added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –MuZemike 15:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Workers' Group (US)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched Google news archive and books and was unable to find any sources for this. There's a long rant on the talk page which suggests that this was a more minor group than the article claims (not that talk page rants are reliable either). Chick Bowen 00:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of verifiable sources to be found and nothing in the article points to notability, so deleting via WP:N seems appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don Pizarro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article lacks reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BurtAlert (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or userfy because it is very difficult to source e-book authors. This is even worse for a common name. I've found a lot of online sources, but this will take many days to sort through the cruft and blogs from reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if we take everything in the article as accurate, he doesn't seem to meet the standard notability criteria for writers. Chick Bowen 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a resume with no indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Battle of the Bands[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ARTSPAM: written like an advert, ~~does not appear to meet WP:GNG,~~ huge banner image at the top, and potential COI editing going on with recent contributor User:Gbobofficial. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've notified User:Gbobofficial, and having had a closer look around while it seems like the article might be notable enough, it still seems to me it would need a vast re-write to become encyclopedic. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akis Katsoupakis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged CSD for two days with no decision being made. I'm bringing it to AfD to see if a consensus can be reached. (I can't make my mind up - over to you...) Peridon (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The info given in the article do not seem to be 100% "officially" correct or verifiable. For example it says: Suspect world - Theodosia Tsatsou - Whole album arrangement - 1999 - Minos EMI (that is: album - artist - contribution by Katsoupakis - year - label). Nevertheless googling Ύποπτος Κόσμος θεοδοσία τσάτσου Κατσουπάκης gives zero (0) results for pages with info on both Theodosia Tsatsou (which is a notable singer) and Katsoupakis. In other words the album does not have the name Katsoupakis on the front, and the record label page for this album doesn't have info about Katsoupakis' job in the album production etc. In any case a summary of the albums in which Katsoupakis did the arrangement and other stuff can be found in discogs entry for the artist and, according to discogs is as follows (in parenthesis Katsoupakis' job in the album):

Ζήλιον - Ζήλιον (Piano, Mixed By, Synthesizer [Synth], Programmed By, Orchestrated By, Executive Producer - Άκης-cats-Κατσουπάκης)
Ανδριάνα Μπάμπαλη - Ο Τζον Τζον Ζει (Producer - Άκης Κατσουπάκης)
Μάσκες - Κάθε Δεύτερο Λεπτό (Synthesizer, Programmed By, Orchestrated By, Executive Producer - Άκης-cats-Κατσουπάκης)
Μάσκες - Σχέδιο Με Βροχή (Mixed and Orchestrated By - Άκης Κατσουπάκης)
Μάσκες - Γέφυρες Στις Ταράτσες (Orchestrated By - Άκης Κατσουπάκης)

I am not familiar with the en:wiki rules very much so don't know what this data means about the artist's notability or not notability, if it is a clear cut case or borderline case, i have no idea. Also note that i found no publications or articles of any kind on the web about him except single word refs of the type "piano:Akis Katsoupakis". For the greek wiki which i usually edit this is speedy del because of conflict of interest and because no articles are found on newspapers and magazines about him, only about the albums he participated.--Vanakaris (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unverifiable content can be deleted. However, there is more than enough verifiable content to meet WP:GNG and as a professional musician. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About what Vanakaris is mentioning above : anyone who can read Greek can read this (Sokratis Malamas talking about Akis Katsoupakis - taken from "Metro" Magazine) and this (Akis Katsoupakis arranging at the Megaron) , just to name a few. Reference links list keeps growing. Please consider this deletion proposal as a personal attack.Akicats (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I brought the article here with a neutral nomination to get a problem sorted - one way or the other. "anyone who can read Greek can read..." - I would point out that while references in other languages are not proscribed here, this is the English language Wikipedia and that these references are all Greek to most of us.Sorry, couldn't resist... If the author is more familiar with the Greek Wikipedia, I would also point out that the other language Wikipedias I've edited on or been to for some reason seem rather less bothered about referencing than we are here. I couldn't say about the Greek one. I would advise the author to read WP:COI and WP:OWN. It is the article that is under discussion, not the author. Unless, that is, they are one and the same as the username suggests. Autobiography is not recommended - unless one is rather thick-skinned. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest trying to find some English refs. If not, move to the Greek wikipedia. Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that Mr Katsoupakis (and i think it is not inappropriate to admit that i am referring to both the user and the subject of the article - he is not obliged to be knowledgeable of all wikipedia rules after all, and maybe there is some confusion of wikipedia with other sites like myspace etc) he may be a young and promising artist but does not seem to be notable enough for encyclopedia article yet, at least according to the Greek wiki rules. It was deleted from the Greek wiki because there are not any articles in newspapers etc about Katsoupakis himself, only single word refs of the type: Sokratis Malamas in his interview for "Metro" Magazine said in one instance "also Katsoupakis did a great job". I am afraid i have no time to help editing the article. Assuming that the English wiki rules are more flexible (i dont really know) and the article is keep, shouldnt someone edit it in order for the discography section to be clearly indicating that it is not solo albums by Katsoupakis but various albums he participated/arranged/produced?--Vanakaris (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dear mr. Vanakaris, being an internet user from the times of the "mac classic", i can tell the difference between social networks and Wikipedia ! I'm not so young as you're implying .
Back to the point , sadly Greek magazines and newspapers simply ignore Arrangers , Producers and Musicians, they only deal with Singers and Folk Composers (usually after death) . Akis Katsoupakis has way too many references for his job, compared to others. About what Vanakaris mentions at the top of this discussion about Suspect World - Theodosia Tsatsou , it's a false accusation ! You can check here the back cover of the cd for credits (Akis Katsoupakis : Arranger , Executive Producer , Co-Mix) .Discogs releases are not yet completed, they will be at some time , don't worry. It seems to me that Vanakaris has plenty of time to spend on evidence that prove that Akis Katsoupakis is not a notable artist.Akicats (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the list of citations I don't see beyond passing mentions any substantial coverage we require to write a biography. A list of credits as arranger and producer is nice and may testify for a successful professional career but does not amount to notability. If someone or some group is 'ignored' in press or another wikipedia we can't remedy that here nor should we.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to La Ronde (amusement park). And also to Skara Sommarland Sandstein 07:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra (La Ronde)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Müdigkeit (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to La Ronde (amusement park) - seems like a reasonable option.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not into Skara Sommarland? Merging seems not to be an optimum solution. However, deletion proposal reminds an climbing on the Reichstag attempt since the same user proposed a deletion on the same article in ther German Wikipedia. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into both amusement park articles. Redirect to La Ronde, since the name of the article uses "La Ronde". 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Koca[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because his age has not been verified by an international body specifically dealing with the oldest people in the world. There are MANY people who claim to be the oldest in the world, and 9 times out of 10 when they are 115 years old of age or more, they are lying. See Longevity claims and Longevity myths for all of the claimants. The "Records" title should not be present at the bottom of the article, neither should the template "Oldest person in the world since 1955", either. The people listed for the title or are in the template, have had their ages documented and validated by the Gerontology Research Group. Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His age can be seen on his identity card given by the Republic of Turkey.[18][19] He is a poor man and I think he is not interested in record breaking. That's why he hasn't revealed his age internationally. There are also articles about non-verified supercentenarians in the List of European supercentenarians like Józef Kowalski and Florence Green. -Hürrem (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge We have an article for non-notable longevity claimants at longevity claims. An ID card says nothing about the age - was it printed in 1891? There are articles about Józef Kowalski and Florence Green because they are notable for their WWI-era military services. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nominator says, many many people claim to be the oldest in the world; there's nothing here to suggest enough notability for a WP article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Better Business Bureau [20]

[2] Inc. 500. [21]

[3] Inc. 500 [22]

[4] Dun & Bradstreet, [https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/ReportSelectionCmd?dunsNumber=0&busName=ACOUSTI-CLEAN%2C%20INC.&searchType=NSF&storeId=10001&catalogId=70001&productId=0&address=825%20GATEPARK%20DR%20STE%203&city=DAYTONA%20BEACH&state=FL&zip=321147307&country=US

[5] Better Business Bureau [23]

[6] [24]

[7] [25]

[8] [26]

[9] ttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22chuckie+mauk%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

[10] ttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22chuckie%20mauk%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=nw

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]